Mike-EEEMike-EEE

My feedback

  1. 6,524 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      You have left! (?) (thinking…)
      under review  ·  265 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » .NET  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 40 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,718 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/845239306671308800

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Boy it got quiet in here all of the sudden. ;)

      ---

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 54 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,654 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/842717393357099009

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Just saw this blog article. Looks like JetBrains developed a ubiquitous application development language for Java/JavaScript. They are looking to compile to iOS as well:
      https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2017/03/kotlin-1-1

      So, pretty much everything out there is ubiquitous these days with the exception of .NET.

      Probably should have posted this idea on JetBrains forum instead. ;)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      > we will see if the idea of having (the very good IMHO) .Net core for the server backend and having nothing at all for the client side (except creating and maintaining a complete separate JS tree for the clients) will work out. I personally doubt it.

      Indeed, if it ends in this scenario, we will see developers and organizations managing and maintaining two incompatible code bases in two incompatible languages, thereby doubling the effort and money required to do so vs. a JavaScript-only solution:
      http://blog.developers.win/2016/11/why-an-html5-compliant-net-is-important/

      Therefore they (or at least the fiscally intelligent ones) will end up switching to Node/JS-based solutions as it will be a cheaper development path:
      https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/azuredev/2016/03/02/azure-xamarin-and-a-ubiquitous-net/

      Fortunately, Mono (a flavor of .NET) has been verified as being ported over to WebAssembly, which would make .NET available in the browser. I also have heard an unverified report that it something will be available for developers to use within 2-3 months, which would be excellent and much sooner than anything that I have anticipated. So, there's hope. :)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Good question, Anonee! I've learned to take a "I'll believe when I see it" approach to MSFT mobile. ;) I saw a report somewhere that they are expecting 0% market share (!) by 2021 I believe. I would say that Surface Phone is their only chance! FWIW, I still own an HTC M8 Windows Phone 8.1 heh heh.

      Now on with our Friday morning show...

      ---

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 169 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,567 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/840175220493291525

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anonee, patience. :)

      I share your angst about the amount of time that this idea has been Under Review. In fact there is part of me that still says it was done by mistake. But make no mistake MSFT is investing into .NET. They wouldn't have acquired Xamarin otherwise. And it is that same Xamarin team that is porting .NET (Mono) to WebAssembly that would essentially actualize and complete this idea, so do not go rushing over to JavaScript unless you truly find it a better paradigm.

      FWIW, some kid genius back in 2011 made a transpiled .NET JS framework that already renders .NET in WebGL: http://jsil.org Now, how awesome would it have been to hear Steven Sinofsky jump up and down on stage at Mix'11 about THAT rather than trying to impress SL developers with blinking sprites in an HTML5 page?

      (Also FWIW, the reason why this isn't a viable option at present is that it doesn't support PCLs, so you still end up with multiple codebases)

      In any case, MSFT is running a business, and JS has indeed become ubiquitous alongside .NET. You can run JS everywhere, and it would not be very pragmatic for MSFT to ignore the market that has been created around this.

      Fortunately, with the advent of WASM and its Mono port, .NET will attain market reach parity with JS. And even technically speaking, other technology stacks such as Java should be along for the ride, too. As a result, we *should* (as this is all conjecture and based on my limited understanding) and will be able to select the technology stack that makes the most sense (and cents) to us, rather than the one (or ones) that can reach the greatest market. It's going to be a little longer yet, but it appears to be on its way. Stay tuned.

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anonymous, technically once .NET Standard is available, both Noesis and Avalonia will be able to utilize .NET (and EF) Core and deploy to supported platforms via Mono. As for vendor controls, I am actually discussing this with the Noesis team if you would like to follow along here:
      http://www.noesisengine.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1011&p=5803#p5803

      Now onto our regular Friday morning scheduling:

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 59 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,364 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/837636698376929280

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anonymous (and really, open an account here, LOL), I would say that both Avalonia and Noesis is greater than SL3.0. Avalonia has a lot of heart but it hasn't reached critical mass yet. It is still in alpha. TBH it is an extreme challenge to pull off a feat such as this in a closed-source capacity.

      I would say that Noesis is more like what UWP *should* be. It does lack markup extensions, but they just verified that they are on the way: https://twitter.com/noesisengine/status/837226399727378432

      If I were to start a project today I would definitely go with Noesis above any other option since it is now free for indie developers, has a team that cares about Xaml, listens to its customers, and doesn't take five years to implement features *ahem*UWP*ahem*.

      That is not to discredit Avalonia, but like I said they are in alpha currently vs. a 2.0 product. Again, the Avalonia team has a lot of heart and I will definitely be keeping track of their efforts.

      And yes, once you get vendors making controls for you, then you have arrived, indeed. :)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Indeed @birbilis. Ammy, so hot right now. :) Exciting times ahead!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Noesis 2.0 was announced today and is now free for indie development:
      https://twitter.com/noesisengine/status/836880385120301056

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anonee that is what .NET Standard 2.0 is meant to address (should be announced/released @ this year's //build):

      https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/11/dotnet-standard-20-goals

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Far too sensible of an idea, Anonymous... it will never work. ;) But no, if you want to amass a coordinated community effort, why not focus all firepower on Avalonia?

      https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia

      Just think: Avalonia uses Mono, and Mono is being ported to WebAssembly. It also already runs/supports the same platforms that Mono does as well. So when Mono finally supports WebAssembly, so will Avalonia (in theory).

      COOL RIGHT??? I just connected those dots. Surprised it took me that long. Avalonia is basically the free/open-source/community counterpart to Noesis.

      Also, "YES" to all of your understandings below. :)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Philippe I am with you 100% on everything but Xaml referring to UI engines. It is often conflated with UI -- and understandably so as it started out embedded in WPF -- but Xaml by itself evolved into its own assembly and is used for more than UI (Windows Workflow). Feel free to join the discussion here if you haven't already to port System.Xaml to .NET Core:
      https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/5766

      And yeah, Xamarin Forms was a gallant attempt, but it should be shelved ASAP. When I said "combine" w/ UWP I was specifically referring to XF's Xaml system, which is better than UWP's but not as good as WPF's of course. In an ideal world we would want WPF's client model wholesale and replace both XF and UWP, for sure. :)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Correct @Anonymous. The Mono support is simply the ability to run .NET in a WASM host. There is no API that would be used to provide a client UI/GUI within that host at present. Currently there are two known MSFT models that could (and should) be combined (taking the best out of each offering): Xamarin.Forms and UWP.

      Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), WASM exposes a fatal flaw in Xamarin.Forms design. Namely, if you build custom controls, you are required to build a renderer for every platform that is supported by Xamarin.Forms. So if XF adds WASM, that means every control vendor must go through every control and release a new renderer for WASM.

      Very much a pain.

      Obviously, a model such as WPF/Avalonia is preferred where you have one model and your controls are skinned/themed according to the host it is rendering in.

      As for Moonlight, that might be a possibility. It's last known supported featureset is/was SL3, which if you know anything about was nothing compared to SL5. I would rather see a new effort altogether that is community driven like .NETCore/GitHub initiative. Like I said earlier the earliest we'll see anything is 2018.

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anonymous, that is sort of the request here. There are all sorts of "here and there" endeavors, especially on the JS/HTML5 front with CSHTML5 and Bridge.NET that do "some" of the things we're looking for here, but not all. Noesis is another example. It's got a lot going for it, but it doesn't offer the 3D component. Additionally, it also suffers from the same problem of UWP and doesn't support Markup Extensions ATM. Which to me you might as well say you support XML, not Xaml. :P

      In any case, we're looking for a comprehensive, authoritative vision and offering from MSFT that says "this is the platform." Once you have that, you'll get vendors such as ComponentOne jumping onboard and contributing their goods.

      We're close. All the pieces are there now that Mono is being ported to WebAssembly. My feeling is that //build2017 is going to be all about .NET Standard 2.0 (the terrain), and then //build2018 will be this new platform (the highways). Then it will all about finding the right API (the cars) to best utilize it.

      BTW, EF Core already works on Xamarin in some capacity: https://xamarinhelp.com/entity-framework-core-xamarin-forms/

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Indeed, @birbilis. Xaml is simply a (powerful) serialization/data format that allows you to expressively describe .NET objects while leveraging key features that vastly improve the developer (read: tooling) experience when compared with other data formats. You can describe anything in it, whether it is UI, your application domain model, or as you point out, 3D objects. If it's a .NET object, you can describe it in Xaml.

      Anyways, on with our regular Friday morning programming here. :)

      ---

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 90 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,280 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/835098020643471360

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Right Philippe, it doesn't support any 3D, but is a cross-platform vector-based .NET rendering solution, which is still impressive in its own right. You might already know this, but just in case, you can pair Noesis with Unity3D to achieve what you are looking for today. In fact Unity currently runs in the web browser via Flash control, so there's that. I am sure they too will be supporting WebAssembly in the next year or so.

      Unity also now support .NET4.5, which is pretty impressive. The only drawback with Unity is that it is a commercial product like Noesis, but more notably does suffer from very un-.NET design in its integration. For instance you are required to create classes that have convention-based methods. So if you misspell a method name it doesn't work. Additionally you get no intellisense around this sort of design (and impacts discoverability).

      You can find an example of this here (look for the "Start" and "Update" methods):
      https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/step-by-step-tutorial-for-c-net-dll-and-unity3d-pro-only.99427/

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Anony, 100% agree. UWP is a tragic, terrible joke. The lack of adoption is proof of its disaster. The group in charge of it continues to be old skool, terribly managed, and still Windows-centric. It is still mired in closed-source thinking and very few parts of it are on GitHub. The only good use for it is a rendering host for another API such as Avalonia, as you suggest.

      Another good candidate, is Noesis. They are top on my list currently. The owners are very engaging and they care about Xaml, unlike the UWP group:
      http://www.noesisengine.com/

      The downside is that they are commerical/licensed/paid. However, considering options it might be worth the investment.

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Oh heyyyyyyy look at that. One year ago today someone got drunk @ MSFT and accidentally hit the "Under Review" button for this issue. ;) ;) ;)

      @Anonee, forget all those links (although they are very nice, yes), the only one that matters is the one below where Mr. de Icaza confirms that Mono is currently being ported to WASM. Incidentally, this should give provide a tremendous sense of relief to MSFT management as now they can focus their valuable resources on getting .NET working on toasters. Or whatever else they currently feel is more important than a ~3.5 billion device install market. Gotta "brag" about "something" for next year's Connect(); after all.

      @Anonymous: that has nothing to do with this issue. ;) It's actually the antithesis of this concept. But thank you for sharing. :)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Still blazing along here. We are now over 6k votes and going strong!

      --

      Weekly Friday morning check-in: 136 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,171 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/832565033859178496

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Digging the conversation here @Anonee, @Anonymous (with a profile picture, LOL), and @Marc. Finding myself nodding. :) Very encouraged about the future here.

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      This idea has passed 6,000 votes, wh00t! Also, Mr. de Icaza just confirmed that changes are already currently underway for Mono to support WebAssembly:

      http://forums.dotnetfoundation.org/t/wasm-asm-js-plans-projects/1947/4

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      45k total votes... next stop, 50k. :) We're also a little less than two weeks away from this vote being "Under Review" for an entire year. Whatever that means. :)

      ---

      Weekly check-in: 48 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 45,022 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/830037774816382976

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      55 more votes and we'll be at a cool 45k collective votes for this idea. Additionally, this idea in particular is looking to ***** 6k on its own soon.

      ---

      Weekly check-in: 85 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,945 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/827492561497518080

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Slowly inching towards 45k with the total vote here...

      39 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,830 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/824961553459986432

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      FWIW, we're one month away from having this vote being Under Review. It is also in the #2 spot for top ideas on this forum.

      ---

      42 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,772 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/822420454489157633

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Back to business here. ;)

      46 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,727 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/819877485542338561

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      +1 to Marc. Reflects very poorly on UserVoice and/or MSFT (who should be moderating) to allow such posts to persist, or even publish to begin with. Does anyone there even care anymore? ;)

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      36 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,675 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/817356558757675008

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all out there -- especially to all those who have supported this idea. ;)

      26 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,634 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/814819575955161089

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      52 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,596 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/812270296476614656

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      40 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,528 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/809733206186594304

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      31 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,459 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/807216642002472964

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Indeed Marc, it may be impossible to drop all server codes *now* but that is the direction we're heading. I am in agreement with your passionate hate towards JavaScript, of which it is unadulterated. :P

      FWIW, I dropped HTML/JS/Perl back in 2001 to pick up Visual Studio and learn .NET. I dropped JS with the intent of never having to deal with its ugly face again. However, since it does work in more places than .NET now, it by essence more valuable and is why companies are gravitating towards it.

      I have seen this with my own clients and there is chatter along the web. The best example (and corresponding diaglogue) can be found here, if you can wade through the discussion:
      http://forums.dotnetfoundation.org/t/cross-platform-wpf/421

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      I agree Marc, it doesn't make sense, but if you excuse the pun, it makes cents. :p

      Companies are tired of hiring two types of developers for two different code bases in JavaScript *and* .NET, as it is expensive not only in time but money. Since JavaScript works in the client browser process and .NET does not, they are dropping .NET altogether and going strictly with JavaScript everywhere. This not only means a simpler development paradigm, but means yielding nearly half the TCO (total cost of ownership) of their projects while putting the savings back into their pockets.

      ---

      Now, onto our regular scheduled programming... :)

      ---

      53 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,414 combined votes across 10 similar ideas asking for a ubiquitous .NET. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/804662238510534656

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      92 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,357 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/802147307953209345

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      72 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,256 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/799618538818457600

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      82 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,172 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/797091992949891072

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      89 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,086 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/794553664815828994

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Excellent article, anonymous! Thank you for sharing.

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Glad to hear you "get it" Marc. :) I added on this topic (from a business perspective) with a recent post here:
      http://blog.developers.win/2016/11/why-an-html5-compliant-net-is-important/

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Couple of links to note:

      Telerik has created a NativeScript that allows you to code in TypeScript/JavaScript native applications. This essentially makes JavaScript the only language you need to know to create ubiquitous applications, meaning you no longer need to know objective-c, java, or even .NET. :P
      http://searchcloudapplications.techtarget.com/podcast/NativeScript-framework-eases-cross-platform-app-development-woes

      Also, Avalonia seems to be picking up steam. Maybe the answer here is to put official, authoritative support (and resources) from MSFT behind this project, which would include implementing 3D and WebAssembly support? By doing so, you will have effectively created a truly ubiquitous .NET client application development model:
      https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      99 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,986 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/791975480954089473

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      125 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,876 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/789464549518872576

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Hey, would you look at that? This idea is over 5,000 votes as of today. I am personally humbled and amazed to see the success it has received over the past year. Thank you to all who have shown and continue to show their support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      60 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,728 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/786909745110196224

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      181 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,661 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big Three" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/784488818820775937

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      205 (!) votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,457 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big 3" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/781850028142919682

      Thank you all who have shown and continue to show your support!

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      70 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,248 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support to the "Big 3" here:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/779298435291877376

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      73 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 43,164 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes (wpdev adjusted their voting system last week so the totals are lower than last). Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/776770240646643712

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      64 votes were cast for this idea last week, bringing the total to 44,374 combined votes for a ubiquitous .NET across 10 similar votes. Please feel free to like and/or retweet to show your support:
      https://twitter.com/DevelopersWin/status/774243669557870592

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      React Native for Web, doing exactly what MSFT should be doing for .NET. :P
      https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/08/a-glimpse-into-the-future-with-react-native-for-web/

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      Over 4,000 votes as of today! Thank you so much to everyone that has supported this.

      @Anonymous I was like you and was getting concerned that I haven't heard anything in a while in WebAssembly, so I contacted my Google contact who has been working with this. This is very much in play, and the Git repo is pretty active:
      https://github.com/WebAssembly/

      MSFT Edge has already declared support for it so in SOME fashion we should ultimately see SOMETHING... SOMEWHERE. LOL. Of course the end result remains the key here.

      It does appear the IL efforts in the Git repo have waned. That doesn't mean that MSFT isn't working on their own efforts. The fact that this vote is Under Review, along with Miguel's Reddit comments below make me cautiously optimistic here.

      MSFT makes announcements every November (connect(); ) and Mayish (//build). So I am looking forward this November for the first signs of anything, if anything. :P

      Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

      @Gavin, yeah the original ask can be seen as a little ambitious, but we're actually very close to the heart and soul of what this is after. iOS, Droid, and Windows 10 (really the only Windows to consider) are covered now after the Xamarin acquisition. The only platform that needs the MSFT luv is WebAssembly (which pretty much every comment except yours has been asking for. ;)).

      Making sure that it can account for future platforms would be nice, too. Since there are now 3 with Miguel de Icaza saying that WebAssembly should be "simple" to add, this appears to be accounted for:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/programmerchat/comments/4dxpcp/i_am_miguel_de_icaza_i_started_xamarin_mono_gnome/d1v9xyd

      Finally, if you truly feel that MSFT doesn't have "infinite development potential"... maybe you're in the wrong crowd? Perhaps go learn Java or JavaScript, instead? ;) ;) ;)

    • 98 votes
      Vote
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        I agree to the terms of service
        Signed in as (Sign out)
        You have left! (?) (thinking…)
        23 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 
        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        And above all... it's SLOW! How slow, you ask? THIS SLOW:
        https://twitter.com/AntaoAlmada/status/836239173413564421

        :o

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        Another solid article demonstrating some more gotchas. You know what, instead of waiting for this issue to be addressed, just follow this blog in the meantime. :P

        http://blog.i3arnon.com/2017/02/21/task-wrapper/

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        @Mani, as I have stated below, the infestation concept is not local to this idea. Here is an article on MSDN that acknowledges this very quality:
        https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj991977.aspx

        Search for zombie or turles. There is definitely a "spread" or "infection" of the code that follows integration of this API. While you are correct to state that the compiler requires these words, the *idea* again (this being an idea/suggestion site) is to improve this API so that these words are not needed, thereby returning cleaner code/design to our solutions.

        Additionally, the guidance you provide for calling ".Wait()" while intuitive is actually one of the gotchas for using this API:
        http://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on-async-code.html

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        Some more pitfalls and explaining away of TaskAPI here:
        http://blog.stephencleary.com/2016/12/eliding-async-await.html

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        Async gotchas are now making their way into MSFT code, making a clinic on how not to write async code. The horror:
        https://twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/799304014001270784

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        API's getting bit by the void async oddity:
        http://brianlagunas.com/prism-delegatecommand-fromasynchandler-is-obsolete/

        Yes, we can do better. :) :) :)

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        I appreciate your zeal to preserve the status quo (or rather, unnovation) here, but I think it's safe to say that if users are comparing your API to a zombie infestation, that there is room for improvement. :P This is not my term, either. This is a well-used term you can see in both blogs and StackOverflow, which of course is quite apt.

        With that said, you're thinking with current restrictions and designs, while the point of the idea is to improve upon them with further innovation, perhaps (and most likely) with new language keywords and syntactic sugar.

        I agree this a non-trivial ask, and will involve many IQ cycles that unfortunately are outside of my scope and experience here. All I (and others know) is that I/we had pretty, consistent code, interfaces, and design before TPL, and now with post-TPL they are gone, with a whole lot of zombie horde to double-tap in its wake.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmA2WYyw-_A

        :P

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        @Joseph, You bet I'm complaining. :) Complaining with hopes of improving, as per the title of the vote.

        I'm afraid you're going to have to work a little more to convince me how being infested with zombies is *ideal*. Sounds like were once a human coder and have been bitten and overrun by the horde. :P

        If you mean in the current scope of capability, that is one thing, but that is not the ask here. The ask is to remove the zombie infestation altogether, along with the inordinate esoteric requirements to work with the current API, of which I am sure you are painfully familiar with, or at least were at some point.

        We can do better, I KNOW WE CAN!!! :)

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        This looks like a vote/issue that will address some of the notorious TPL friction. Please upvote it here:
        https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/8931

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

        Cool, thanks for the share, Qwertie. It's got my votes. :) To be sure, this vote is asking for improving TPL as a whole, in any way necessary/possible. If that involves stack switching (or really, ANYTHING to defeat the zombies and esoteric usage friction), then so be it. :)

        Mike-EEEMike-EEE supported this idea  · 
        Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 
      • 528 votes
        Vote
        Sign in
        Check!
        (thinking…)
        Reset
        or sign in with
        • facebook
        • google
          Password icon
          I agree to the terms of service
          Signed in as (Sign out)
          You have left! (?) (thinking…)
          started  ·  15 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Test Tools  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
          Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

          Awesome work, Pratap! Thank you for not only listening to your customers, but being actively involved and engaging with them here and on the MSDN blog. It's that sort of dynamic that is very much needed out of the MSFT developer experience and ecosystem.

          Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

          Definitely.

          Mike-EEEMike-EEE supported this idea  · 
        • 116 votes
          Vote
          Sign in
          Check!
          (thinking…)
          Reset
          or sign in with
          • facebook
          • google
            Password icon
            I agree to the terms of service
            Signed in as (Sign out)
            You have left! (?) (thinking…)
            5 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
            Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

            @KP correct. Well, it would *support* them as they do now. That is simply a matter of creating the symbols and ensure they align with the view that the developer has applied to their code. :)

          • 35 votes
            Vote
            Sign in
            Check!
            (thinking…)
            Reset
            or sign in with
            • facebook
            • google
              Password icon
              I agree to the terms of service
              Signed in as (Sign out)
              You have left! (?) (thinking…)
              5 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Cloud  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
              Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

              Thanks for your feedback and response @pcchan. I am open to ANY improvement over the current system, as what is in place now makes it seem like you don't really care or have much pride/concern to what your users must endure to communicate with you and/or each other.

              I'm even OK with using LiveFyre as the new docs has (unfortunately) switched over to, even though it is a property that was recently acquired by Adobe... you know, your historically bitter rival. :P

              Anything but what is in place now, please. :) :) :)

              Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

              Ahhhhhh... docs.microsoft.com moved away from Disqus!
              Example: https://docs.microsoft.com/teamblog/stackoverflow-documentation-for-microsoft-developers/

              Oh well. Again anything is better than Wordpress. :P

              Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

              Good points, @tsahi. Thank you for your feedback and perspective. I believe Disqus does offer custom solutions that might be able to cater to these issues. That is, I have seen sites that offer Disqus, but it is customized specifically to that site (e.g., site-specific authentication and not using Facebook/Disqus's auth).

              On the flip side, you cannot see the activity from other Disqus sites in your own, which is also pretty valuable metrics, too. :)

              So, choose your poison. Of course, Disqus is not the only option. There is LiveFyre which was recently acquired by Adobe, but I do not consider it as advanced (or pervasive/popular) as Disqus. To get a good idea of how popular Disqus is with the .NET crowd especially, check out the blog posts that are shared weekly by the "This Week in .NET" series and note how many of them utilize it.

              All I know (and it sounds like we are in agreement on this at least) what is in place now is an absolute embarrassment and must change... someway, somehow. :P

              Mike-EEEMike-EEE supported this idea  · 
            • 113 votes
              Vote
              Sign in
              Check!
              (thinking…)
              Reset
              or sign in with
              • facebook
              • google
                Password icon
                I agree to the terms of service
                Signed in as (Sign out)
                You have left! (?) (thinking…)
                9 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
                Mike-EEEMike-EEE supported this idea  · 
              • 1,442 votes
                Vote
                Sign in
                Check!
                (thinking…)
                Reset
                or sign in with
                • facebook
                • google
                  Password icon
                  I agree to the terms of service
                  Signed in as (Sign out)
                  You have left! (?) (thinking…)
                  188 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - Visual Basic  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  LOL... bwahaha... OMG my troll-lord is clearly dusty... rusty, even. :)

                  We're all part of the same community here, regardless of the language we find ourselves in or makes us passionate. VB/VB6 is as much of MSFT culture as .NET. Let's please reserve the name-calling for the web hacks and JavaScript kiddies where it belongs, K? :) :) :)

                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  I am beginning to understand why you are so familiar with what being a moron is all about.

                  You pasted: "TRANSFER YOU CODE TO ALL PLATFORMS ... !!!"

                  To which I said "care to show us how to do this with web browser?" As the web browser is the BIGGEST platform of them all.

                  To which you said "NET will NEVER run in a browser" and let's not forget your instant classic "it's a server side technology"

                  As I have demonstrated, both of these statements are patently false, in addition to espousing the originating (false) belief that you can transfer code to ALL platforms, as you simply cannot do this for a web browser-hosted application -- the biggest platform of all (topping in at around 3.5 BILLION devices and workstation).

                  > The only client side instance of .NET that ever existed in the context of a web app is Silverlight, and it's deprecated

                  Again, not true, in addition to JSIL there is:
                  http://cshtml5.com

                  Which is built on JSIL with a dedicated team and company in France working on it full time.

                  Additionally, there is:
                  http://bridge.net
                  http://duoco.de

                  Both are transpilers that effectively do the same thing as JSIL, but in a more HTML5 DOM-oriented way.

                  Finally, I suggest you look up the word "moron" before you continue this discussion, just so you have a better grasp on at least one of the concepts you are trying to talk about.

                  Also, the word "irony."

                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  LOL @HMan you clearly do not know how .NET works. JSIL converts IL instruction into JavaScript, the bytecode of the browser. What is the difference between that and how Xamarin translates IL to work on iOS and Droid? is Xamarin not .NET either?

                  Seriously dude. Spend more time reading a book rather than trying to troll on a user forum, LOL.

                  "None of these address the web. In the context of web applications, .NET is a server side technology. JavaScript is a client side technology."

                  But you just said that .NET is a server-side technology. Here let me paste again what you said. "it's a server side technology". You DID say that, right? Let me paste it again to make sure "it's a server side technology". Yep, looks like you.

                  But it DOES clearly run in client-side scenarios as seen on iOS, Droid, and Windows clients. So... which is it? Certainly you're not a moron who doesn't know the difference between server-side and client-side? Please enlighten us here.

                  "List to me what other languages run in a web browser" ... the only one you need is JavaScript, which is 100% ubiquitous and works everywhere -- even where .NET can't, in all modern browsers as a host. I just demonstrated a working proof concept framework that takes .NET code and transpiles it into JavaScript, EXACTLY the same way that Xamarin compiles .NET code into the target platforms of iOS and Droid. And it does so in a 100% standards-compliant cross-platform way.

                  The only hitch is that it has been a side project of some wizkid out of CA for the past 5 years, rather than a full-blown endeavor of an entire MSFT division as it should have been once Silverlight strategy shifted. :(

                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  LOL dude... I don't even know where to start.

                  "it's a server side technology"... then how do you explain WPF, iOS, Droid, Windows Forms, Xamarin.Forms, Silverlight...?

                  You copy/pasted a declaration that you can use .NET on "any" platform, when in fact you cannot run .NET in a web browser, the biggest platform there is.

                  ".NET will NEVER run in a browser"

                  Cover your eyes then: http://jsil.org

                  ;) ;) ;)

                  Before you go about calling people morons, you should probably take some time to study the space you're so sure about.

                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  @HMan, .NET isn't just a server framework, it is an application framework that can run in any hosted environment, which at present includes:
                  - Server
                  - iOS
                  - Droid
                  - Windows

                  You will notice that one of those scenarios isn't listed, and that is the browser. An "ASP.NET website" is .NET on the server, but what gets rendered in the browser is HTML/JS, which is completely incompatible with .NET, the result of which is having to maintain two incompatible codebases: one in .NET on the server, and one in JavaScript on the client. This means twice the amount of work (bugs), and resources (cost) in doing so.

                  You call people morons but seem to think this is a good and acceptable idea. Hm. :)

                  So, simply saying to use .NET for VB6 (or this idea) doesn't apply just yet, as .NET doesn't run within the browser host.

                  Mike-EEEMike-EEE commented  · 

                  LOL Zagor: "TRANSFER YOU CODE TO ALL PLATFORMS ... !!!!"

                  Care to show us how to make .NET work in a web browser, the biggest platform of all? ;) ;) ;)

                Feedback and Knowledge Base